Search
document

Document text Analytics

VAN LIESHOUT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 14847/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45525

Document date: July 7, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

VAN LIESHOUT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 14847/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45525

Document date: July 7, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 14847/89

Johannes Henricus VAN LIESHOUT

against

the NETHERLANDS

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

adopted on 7 July 1992

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Johannes Henricus van Lieshout

against the Netherlands on 8 November 1988. It was registered on

31 March 1989 under file No. 14847/89.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Mr. H.J.M.G.M. van der Meijden, a lawyer practising in Ermelo, the

Netherlands. The respondent Government were represented by their

Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. On 3 September 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights

(Second Chamber) declared the application admissible. It then

proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the

Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred

to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the

parties an examination of the petition and, if need be,

an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal

of the parties concerned with a view to securing a

friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of

respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."

4. On 7 January 1992 the Commission referred the application to

its Second Chamber.

5. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 7 July 1992 it

adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of

the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and

of the solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was

adopted:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1961 and is

residing in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. He is a sergeant in the

Royal Netherlands Armed Forces.

7. On 25 September 1987 the applicant was arrested by the

military police on suspicion of having committed incest and

detained on remand. On 1 October 1987 he was brought before the

Regional Court-Martial (Arrondissementskrijgsraad) of Arnhem. The

Court rejected the request by the "Auditeur-Militair" to prolong

the applicant's detention on remand and ordered his release. On

14 December 1987 the charges against the applicant were withdrawn.

8. Following the applicant's request for compensation for the

days he had been detained on remand, the Regional Court-Martial of

Arnhem awarded him 1,000 Dutch guilders, but rejected his complaint

that his detention had been in violation of Article 5 para. 3 of

the Convention. The Military Court of Appeal (Hoog Militair

Gerechtshof) dismissed his appeal on 26 May 1988.

9. The applicant complained before the Commission that there had

been a violation of Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 of the Convention as

following his arrest he was not brought promptly before the

competent judicial authority.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

10. Following the decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the

disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they

wished to make.

11. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly

settlement.

12. By letter of 5 November 1991 the respondent Government

informed the Commission of their willingness to write a letter to

the applicant stating that he was not brought promptly before a

judicial officer after his arrest and that the authorities had thus

violated Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. Following the

applicant's reply and a proposal by the Commission, the Government,

in a further letter of 6 February 1992, informed the Commission

that they were also willing to pay the applicant's costs for legal

representation with which the applicant had been duly charged and

which had not been covered by any national or international legal

aid scheme. The Government were also willing to pay an amount of

300 Dutch guilders to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage.

13. By letter of 3 June 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed the

Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's proposals.

14. At its session of 7 July 1992 the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a

settlement. It further found, having regard to

Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly

settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for

Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant